I realised today that while I believe there was a big bang at the start of the universe, I have never seen the proof for a big bang. I have just heard  that scientist believe there was a big bang.
Similarly, while I think animals evolve, I have never seen the proof for evolution, just that scientist think evolution occurs.
So what exactly would it take for a normal person to see the proof for big bang and for evolution, or at least see enough proof to go, "Oh so that's why..." ? None of us really have time or resources in our lives to become a physicist, an evolutionary biologist , or a theologian that easily..
So here are your choices:
1. Believe what scientists say, without ever seeing the proof, just because they are scientists.
2. Believe what your favourite religion says, because that's what seems right.
3. Become a theologian.
4. Become a scientist.
5. Don't care about the big questions at all, and live life without ever worrying about why.
6. Relapse into the awesome world of Descarte's skeptisicism.
7. Become a mathematician. Then whatever you say will be utterly useless in answering the 'why's', but at least what you say will be logical.

Imagine if humans reproduced the same way the Surinam toad breeds.

Fun fact: Experimentalist Monotheism is not an option for "Religious Beliefs" in your profile on facebook.

Yet.
Let's wait and see how long it takes for it to get there.
http://xkcd.com/900/

Here's a thought experiment I often wonder about. In all religions, parents feel it is their right and duty to educate students in their own religion. Similarly, atheists feel that they should shelter their children from religion. This however leads to claims of brain washing, i.e. , the children have been so brainwashed into their parents beliefs that it is hard for them to break out of that mold when they become adults.  So here's the idea: what if a long term study was conducted on a sample of children with parents from different religions where the parents were asked not to educate their kids about their (the parents') religion? The children would still be allowed to observe the religion in their society as a cultural thing. For example, in a Christian household, the children would be able to see other people in the community going to church etc. The children would also be allowed to read books and use other non-parent sources to investigate about religion. When the children approach and age of 'reason', previously agreed upon, the children would be presented with primary sources of different religions and books on atheism. After that, the researchers would study and record the patterns and road the religious beliefs of theses children take.

This study would allow us to understand the extent of parent's beliefs influencing their children's beliefs. It would also hopefully allow us to study how much the society affected the children's beliefs. Mostly, it would be kind of interesting to see which religion (or form of atheism)the children pick when they are adults.

My musings were about this: all religions and atheism claim that their beliefs can be at least supported  by reason. Very few religions would claim that their beliefs are completely irrational. This study would in a way put those claims up to test, and hopefully allow a measure of which beliefs can be somewhat arrived at through logic and reason.

I am also partly concerned with Islamic views about freedom of children to choose their religion upon reaching adulthood. There is the idea that Muslim parents have a duty to educate their children about Islam from a very young age. Thus, Muslim children would grow up with knowing about only Islam as a way to answer the question about existence. Let's assume that the moment the child reaches the age of reason, he starts studying about other religions and atheism, and decides to change his religion. The formal punishment in Islamic law in an Islam country for apostasy is death. This means that Muslim children are essentially very limited in freedom of choosing their religion: when infants, they only know of Islam, and when they reach the age where they can reason and think on their own about their beliefs, they have the threat of a death penalty. Maybe I'm missing something in my line of reasoning here, but if so, I would love to know what the Islamic idea of children education is.

Imagine if instead of one life of around 60 years, humans had 100 lives of around 1 year each. For each live, we are born as adults in our 20-40s.  For each live, we are grouped with a different family. I wonder how our human culture would have evolved. Our memories and knowledge would carry over from one live to another (essentially, our minds and brains), but our bodies would differ.

Let me backtrack and explain where this weird idea came from. I was playing Dota2, and I realised just how beautiful I found the fact that a random team of 5 people who have never known each other can at times come together and show brilliant teamwork and mutual understanding. The only common motivation is winning a match. Which made me wonder : what if real life was like that? What if real life consisted of episodes , and we all felt the need to perform intensely, no matter who our team - mates?

Here are my ideas: philosophy, arts, and science and technology would be the most foremost pursuits. Architecture would persist, but the number of buildings actually built would be really small, with preference given to either highly utilitarian buildings or highly aesthetic ones.

Small businesses and entrepreneurship would however suffer, since the time-frame would be too small for a person to invest in a single business.  However, there would be a small number of large multinational companies solely focussed at providing for our collective needs. In fact, it could even be that these companies would grant a shareholder status automatically to each person who is born, because there would be a need to invest in the next life financially, rather than the current one.

Science and technology would exist and flourish primarily because humans would feel a high need to leave a mark for humanity, and also to contribute to some form of collective pool for mankind. Since one person cannot put stuff in store for his next life, his best bet would be to contribute to the general public, and hence benefit as a member of the same public collective in the next life.

Having experienced temporary death, mankind's philosophical endeavours would be even more fervent and desperate. People would know the feeling of death, and would be even more fascinated with the idea of the final death.

Being born in a different place in each life, humans would abandon all notion of different cultures and different civilisations. Instead, the only extent of cultural differences would be due to utilitarian reasons arising from adaptation to climate and natural resources. There would be a global language,  a global community, a more tightly knit global consciousness, a  global political and economic system.

Finally, the most important question: human emotions and morals. Would they change? Would we have new forms of emotion? Would we perhaps have a different set of morals?

One of the coolest math theorems I have seen: Given a function f: A -> R s.t f is increasing, then f is Riemann integrable.

Had a conversation with a friend about oxytocin, which led to the argument over how much of the emotion we call love might be chemical. Aside from the philosophical consequences of emotions being chemical reactions, the more interesting idea: will a time come when a random person could 'slip' someone a medicine, or a hormone, that would induce an emotion? For example, can love potions become a reality? Can we induce someone using chemicals to fall in love? Can we induce suicidal depression in a person? This may sound weird, but consider: slip someone alcohol and you are technically giving them a potion that is manipulating their mood, their emotions.

Oh by the way, cats are related to suicide because of a fecal parasite. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57465725-10391704/women-with-cats-may-have-higher-suicide-risk-due-to-feline-fecal-parasite/ . Which begs the question: should we be afraid that at some time in the future, people might abuse parasites, and external chemicals, toxins etc, to cause you to commit suicide?